Perhaps the best new feature in Firefox 13 is what’s known as “tabs on demand.” Tabs on demand refers to the way Firefox restarts when you have multiple tabs open. Firefox will now only restore the currently selected tab; background tabs are not loaded. Tabs on demand is a welcome relief for those of us who browse with dozens of tabs open all the time. You no longer need to fear restarting the browser since you won’t have to wait while every tab reloads. Instead, tabs will load only when you select them.

Firefox 13 will bring a slightly new look to some parts of the browser. Both the New Tab and the Home Page have been redesigned. The New Tab page now has links to your most recently and frequently visited sites. It looks more or less just like Opera’s Speed Dial, which Chrome also mimics. There’s an option to pin your favorite sites, as well as a button for rejecting sites you don’t want to see.

The default Home Page now has links to menu items like Bookmarks, History, Settings, Add-ons, Downloads and Sync Preferences. There’s nothing here that you can’t access from the menu bar, but it makes frequently used menu items easier for newcomers to find.

Web developers will be glad to know that Firefox 13 introduces support for Google’s not-quite-yet-a-standard SPDY protocol (technically the last two Firefox releases have supported SPDY, but this is the first to have it enabled by default). The SPDY protocol improves on HTTP and in many cases can significantly reduce page load times. SPDY’s other main advantage over HTTP is that all traffic is encrypted. Once Firefox 13 and the Opera 12 preview arrive in their final forms the majority of desktop browsers on the Web will support SPDY.

The Firefox 13 beta also brings a number of improvements to the new Developer Tools. For example, the Page Inspector now allows you to lock in CSS pseudo-classes on inspected page elements—handy for checking out what’s happening in a :hover code block.

For more details on everything that’s new in the developer tools and the rest of Firefox 13, check out Mozilla’s release notes.

34 Reader Comments

The tabs on demand thing is already in the Firefox options, discovered it about two months ago and lived happily ever after, well, aside from the fact that the reason I'm restarting Firefox so frequently in the first place is presumably Firefox's fault

* I switched to Chrome because my butt hurts* If I wanted all the features of Chrome I would just use Chrome--which is just Opera anyway.* Dr. Pizza's silly comments about bugs that he may or may not file reports for and then never follow up on.* Firefox version numbers hurt puppies* I have 16GB of memory, how dare Firefox use more than 180MB of that (with any random number of tabs)!!!!* Firefox developers are crazy!

I have to say I wasn't a big fan of Firefox for a long time. When Chrome came out, I switched to it from Opera.

When FF 11 came out I started comparing it to Chrome, and at this point, I'd have to say it's the winner at this point. I'm one of those people with 30 tabs open all the time (at this point, in both browsers). I've never really noticed the issue of restarting the browser, with striped SSDs and a decent internet connection it all happens pretty quickly.

However, memory usage is an entirely different beast. It seems to me that Chrome uses at least twice as much memory for the same number of pages as Firefox does. FF appears to be /much/ easier on memory usage than Chrome. I have 16GB of RAM, the motivation for going to that number was Chrome sucking up all my memory.

I also like the fact that Firefox doesn't use a separate process for each tab. With Chrome, Task Manager is littered with dozens of instances of 'chrome.exe' making it hard to even determine how much memory Chrome is using.

I also like the tab groups and the handy "list of tabs" button. Makes dealing with dozens of tabs a lot easier. I mean, I know I could go back to the old way and not use tabs as a replacement for bookmarks, but where would the fun be in that?

However, memory usage is an entirely different beast. It seems to me that Chrome uses at least twice as much memory for the same number of pages as Firefox does. FF appears to be /much/ easier on memory usage than Chrome. I have 16GB of RAM, the motivation for going to that number was Chrome sucking up all my memory.

A consequence of the "every tab its own process" stuff - sure increases the stability negligible, but there are obvious downsides. Personally I really hope that FF stays away from that - after they put flash (well all addons, but realistically flash and adobe pdf die more often than anything else) in its own process I don't have any problems with stability any more.

Tabs on demand is nice - not something I'd go crazy over (at least not enough to search for it and discover that it apparently already existed for 2 versions?), but a nice addition nevertheless

Heh, used FF (should be FX but who cares ) a bit on a new linux install, seems great. Both are good. I'd def appreciate that tab on demand part.

What I've noticed though is that when I restarted older versions of FF is that none of the pages are refreshed. Is that part of this behavior? I notice though pages get refreshed upon demand on the mobile version of Chrome though.

However, memory usage is an entirely different beast. It seems to me that Chrome uses at least twice as much memory for the same number of pages as Firefox does. FF appears to be /much/ easier on memory usage than Chrome. I have 16GB of RAM, the motivation for going to that number was Chrome sucking up all my memory.

I'm on the other side of the camp, quite liking the process-per-tab model. I'm not a fan of it for stability reasons but rather because I like being able to control how and when I free up that memory. In Firefox, the memory usage hardly drops after you close 29 of 30 tabs.

However, memory usage is an entirely different beast. It seems to me that Chrome uses at least twice as much memory for the same number of pages as Firefox does. FF appears to be /much/ easier on memory usage than Chrome. I have 16GB of RAM, the motivation for going to that number was Chrome sucking up all my memory.

I'm on the other side of the camp, quite liking the process-per-tab model. I'm not a fan of it for stability reasons but rather because I like being able to control how and when I free up that memory. In Firefox, the memory usage hardly drops after you close 29 of 30 tabs.

So by this time next year we'll have, what... Firefox 25 or something? Stupid...

The Mac version of Firefox seems to be getting slower and more buggy with each release. If I leave it opened on Friday, by Monday it'll be using 3+ GB of RAM. I find myself using Safari more these days. On Windows Firefox is all right.

In Firefox, the memory usage hardly drops after you close 29 of 30 tabs.

This is a very clear indicator that some extension is interfering with Firefox' memory management. As can be seen in [1] a clean Firefox will free most of the memory about 30 seconds after the tabs have been closed (modulo heap fragmentation) and this also mirrors my own day to day experience. I'd suggest that you check in [2] if you are using a known leaky extensions (check the open dependent bugs) or do a manual bisection if that doesn't help. Firefox 15 will make an end to leaks caused by extensions holding references to closed tabs and thus causing leaks once and for all fortunately [3]. Also check if third-party plug-ins are up to date as they are known to have caused severe leaks in the past [4].

I would like to see a user account feature on firefox. Right now, I use Chrome and Firefox. Chrome has email addresses, Facebook account, etc., that I use strictly for professional reasons. I use Firefox for personal reasons. That way, I only have one set of passwords and an identity for each. If Firefox made user accounts that one could log into, I wouldn't need Chrome at all.

Too bad those neutrinos didn't travel faster than the speed of light, now the only thing rivaling it is the Firefox release schedule...

All kidding aside, I'm glad to see FF still maturing while also adding features. It's good for the web technology in general if multiple factions push for better standardization so 'other' browser vendors can't drag their feet.

I would like to see a user account feature on firefox. Right now, I use Chrome and Firefox. Chrome has email addresses, Facebook account, etc., that I use strictly for professional reasons. I use Firefox for personal reasons. That way, I only have one set of passwords and an identity for each. If Firefox made user accounts that one could log into, I wouldn't need Chrome at all.

They got rid of the old profile system??? Never was easy to get to it though.

They got rid of the old profile system??? Never was easy to get to it though.

I am pretty sure you are sarcastic about that, but then again it would be nice to have a big button on the upper left to easily switch profiles. Do any of the new browsers do that?

Anyway, i keep feeling Firefox is getting feature bloated everytime an option like this ends up on the settings page. But then again they consistently add the exact functionality i need or i was already using with some extension.

Most extensions i use are basically changing stuff in the about:config (very few are adding settings there). I'm doing it becausy i'm too lazy to remember all the about:config i would have to make manually and i can't be bothered to update to the beta/aurora that has the settings visible or on by default.

However, memory usage is an entirely different beast. It seems to me that Chrome uses at least twice as much memory for the same number of pages as Firefox does. FF appears to be /much/ easier on memory usage than Chrome. I have 16GB of RAM, the motivation for going to that number was Chrome sucking up all my memory.

A consequence of the "every tab its own process" stuff - sure increases the stability negligible, but there are obvious downsides. Personally I really hope that FF stays away from that - after they put flash (well all addons, but realistically flash and adobe pdf die more often than anything else) in its own process I don't have any problems with stability any more.

Tabs on demand is nice - not something I'd go crazy over (at least not enough to search for it and discover that it apparently already existed for 2 versions?), but a nice addition nevertheless

Bleh, they NEED to move the tab-per-process model. I'm tired of the entire app locking up by one rogue or long-loading tab. Much more apparent in the Mac version of Firefox though.

I would like to see a user account feature on firefox. Right now, I use Chrome and Firefox. Chrome has email addresses, Facebook account, etc., that I use strictly for professional reasons. I use Firefox for personal reasons. That way, I only have one set of passwords and an identity for each. If Firefox made user accounts that one could log into, I wouldn't need Chrome at all.

Just add -ProfileManager to the end of the shortcut on your desktop/taskbar/start menu. It will start the Profile Manager first and you can pick whichever profile you want.

Zak wrote:

So by this time next year we'll have, what... Firefox 25 or something? Stupid...

Most extensions i use are basically changing stuff in the about:config (very few are adding settings there). I'm doing it becausy i'm too lazy to remember all the about:config i would have to make manually and i can't be bothered to update to the beta/aurora that has the settings visible or on by default.

If you're serious, just make a user.js with just those settings and put it in your profile directory. You only have to do it once and Firefox will load it automatically. It will over-write any settings in your prefs.js though (about: config). So, if you change something in about: config and restart, those changes will be written to prefs.js, but will be over-written the next time you start the browser since it will load the setting defined in user.js (which is why you only put the settings there that you actually want, rather just just making a copy of prefs.js and renaming it).

Tabs got you down? Oh my! Isn't it a bit **prolish** to have reams of tabs simultaneously open ... I mean, as **common** as a multiply connected smart phone chat? If you wish to call the gardener or butler, just ring up his damn number!

So much angst over lifes minor impediments. The twitching byteboy oeuvre just reeks! You will excuse me now ... the mistress and I have a reading to attend .....

They got rid of the old profile system??? Never was easy to get to it though.

I am pretty sure you are sarcastic about that, but then again it would be nice to have a big button on the upper left to easily switch profiles. Do any of the new browsers do that?

No, wasn't sarcastic about it. They used to add the profile switcher in the start menu but I don't see it here on this computer with a new install of FF. In linux it was never there. Only time I used it was to clear out the profile that got messed up, which was rare.

Bleh, they NEED to move the tab-per-process model. I'm tired of the entire app locking up by one rogue or long-loading tab. Much more apparent in the Mac version of Firefox though.

If a simple Javascript/Html page can lock up Firefox, there's most probably a bug in FF anyhow, because that really shouldn't happen. Usually those problems were about pdfs or flash videos - which I totally agree was horribly annoying - but since those were put into their own processes I didn't have any problems there any more.

Ok I'm only using linux and Windows, but why would this be fundamentally different with Macs?

So by this time next year we'll have, what... Firefox 25 or something? Stupid...

52/6 = 8 and change. 8+12 = 20. Math is hard. Chrome was already on a 6 week version increase b/c for some reason if something has a higher version number, stupid people believe it is automatically better. Perception is reality to some.

for some reason if something has a higher version number, stupid people believe it is automatically better. Perception is reality to some.

In Firefox's case, the "smart" people believe that the higher number is automatically worse. Because 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.AN (Ad Nausea) is a slower rate of increase, it means it's "getting worse" at a slower pace.

If they'd changed to a six week release cycle and just fudged the numbers so they appear to increase more slowly, all the "smart" people would be a lot happier. It would also avoid the conspiracy theory about it being purely a marketing ploy to match version numbers with Chrome.

Of course even if they'd chosen to be disingenuous about the version number (for the sake of security blanket clutching geniuses) it would have eventually become much like the Linux kernel where you have meaningless numbers out front that don't change or serve any real useful purpose (e.g. "2.6").

I am pretty sure you are sarcastic about that, but then again it would be nice to have a big button on the upper left to easily switch profiles. Do any of the new browsers do that?

Sure. Incognito mode + the Lastpass extension to reenter your passwords. Chrome does it better than Firefox in that you can have two entirely separate profiles active at the same time with a normal window and an incognito window open.

I would like to see a user account feature on firefox. Right now, I use Chrome and Firefox. Chrome has email addresses, Facebook account, etc., that I use strictly for professional reasons. I use Firefox for personal reasons. That way, I only have one set of passwords and an identity for each. If Firefox made user accounts that one could log into, I wouldn't need Chrome at all.

Just add -ProfileManager to the end of the shortcut on your desktop/taskbar/start menu. It will start the Profile Manager first and you can pick whichever profile you want.

Zak wrote:

So by this time next year we'll have, what... Firefox 25 or something? Stupid...

Actually, you can just change the location the shortcut points to by adding a (space) then -p after the quotes to have it access the profile manager.

And I hope you're being sarcastic about the Chrome comment, since version 20 would mean they've released OVER 20 versions since FF was in about version 2.... meaning they're basically doing the same thing... meaning your comment is a bit hypocritical.

Also, WTF who cares if they release a new version every 2 days? At least they're keeping it updated. Of course, if you're reading this while using Internet Explorer 8 (or 6, God forbid), then you won't really get what I'm saying.

Actually, you can just change the location the shortcut points to by adding a (space) then -p after the quotes to have it access the profile manager.

And I hope you're being sarcastic about the Chrome comment, since version 20 would mean they've released OVER 20 versions since FF was in about version 2.... meaning they're basically doing the same thing... meaning your comment is a bit hypocritical.

And for the record: I have been using Firefox since it was still Phoenix with version .5 (I still have the installer!). And I will never switch because I cannot live without extensions.

Also, WTF who cares if they release a new version every 2 days? At least they're keeping it updated. Of course, if you're reading this while using Internet Explorer 8 (or 6, God forbid), then you won't really get what I'm saying.[/quote]

It's hilarious, you came so close to getting the point, and then you whiffed that ball! Yes, it's sarcasm. I think that's pretty obvious given the link to the version history of Chrome. Well, I thought it would be. Apparently not.

Pointlessly elaborating: most of the time that I see people bitching about Firefox version numbers it's coming from someone who happily proclaims that they're now using Chrome. /facepalm

Newsflash: the reason the Mozilla Foundation started the rapid release schedule and went from version 4 to 11 in the span of a year is because they were copying the development model created by Google for Chrome. The only reason people don't bitch about the updates in Chrome is because those assholes at Google do a couple of things to make the update process entirely invisible:

1. They constantly eat up several megs of RAM by having a Google Updater service running in the background watching for the browser to be updated. Thanks Google!

2. Chrome is installed in to the User's Application Data directory (you know, where settings and user data files are supposed to go...apps are supposed to go into a little directory called "Program Files") where regular users have Write access by default.

3. There isn't a huge base of extensions that get broken during version updates in Chrome. In Firefox (pre, what, 10?), when you updated, all of your extensions that hadn't been updated were disabled. That's makes it pretty damn obvious when the browser is updated.

Newsflash: the reason the Mozilla Foundation started the rapid release schedule and went from version 4 to 11 in the span of a year is because they were copying the development model [i]created by Google for Chrome[/i

It's amazing how much stuff Chrome gets credited for. If you look around, however, you'll see that a lot of the stuff that went into Chrome came from somewhere else. There's nothing wrong with that but lets tone the fanboy fiction down a bit. The development model is not new.

So by this time next year we'll have, what... Firefox 25 or something? Stupid...

52/6 = 8 and change. 8+12 = 20. Math is hard. Chrome was already on a 6 week version increase b/c for some reason if something has a higher version number, stupid people believe it is automatically better. Perception is reality to some.

That's why Microsoft had so much trouble getting people to move from Windows 2000 to Windows 7.

Newsflash: the reason the Mozilla Foundation started the rapid release schedule and went from version 4 to 11 in the span of a year is because they were copying the development model created by Google for Chrome[/i

It's amazing how much stuff Chrome gets credited for. If you look around, however, you'll see that a lot of the stuff that went into Chrome came from somewhere else. There's nothing wrong with that but lets tone the fanboy fiction down a bit. The development model is not new.

Bleh, they NEED to move the tab-per-process model. I'm tired of the entire app locking up by one rogue or long-loading tab. Much more apparent in the Mac version of Firefox though.

If a simple Javascript/Html page can lock up Firefox, there's most probably a bug in FF anyhow, because that really shouldn't happen. Usually those problems were about pdfs or flash videos - which I totally agree was horribly annoying - but since those were put into their own processes I didn't have any problems there any more.

Ok I'm only using linux and Windows, but why would this be fundamentally different with Macs?

I don't know what's different in the Mac version, but a heavy page can lock up my MacBook much more than the same page on the same machine under Windows 7 running the same version of Firefox.

The Firefox 13 beta also brings a number of improvements to the new Developer Tools. For example, the Page Inspector now allows you to lock in CSS pseudo-classes on inspected page elements—handy for checking out what’s happening in a :hover code block.

I wonder how the developers of Firebug like this ? [rhetorical question]

I would like to see a user account feature on firefox. Right now, I use Chrome and Firefox. Chrome has email addresses, Facebook account, etc., that I use strictly for professional reasons. I use Firefox for personal reasons. That way, I only have one set of passwords and an identity for each. If Firefox made user accounts that one could log into, I wouldn't need Chrome at all.

Why don't you just use firefox.exe -p ? I use this on a shared laptop for multiple users without having multiple user accounts on the Windows install.